Structured CPD for dentists and dental care professionals who need to strengthen knowledge, reflection and evidence of learning following a GDC concern. Self-paced, with a certificate on completion.
Independent CPD provider. Not affiliated with, accredited by, or endorsed by the General Dental Council (GDC). Course completion does not guarantee any regulatory outcome.
Independent CPD education28 coursesCertificate on completionCounts toward GDC CPD
Course selection
Choose a Course Based on Your Concern
Not sure which course is relevant? Start with the concern or learning need that best matches your situation. This is a guide to help you narrow the catalogue — it does not determine what you must complete for any regulatory purpose.
A structured starting point · 8 courses
The Core GDC Remediation Set
A structured starting point for developing insight, documenting learning and demonstrating practical steps toward improvement — covering the two GDC-specific courses plus insight, reflection, remediation, the fitness to practise process and rebuilding trust. Choosing the set does not, by itself, satisfy any GDC requirement; relevance depends on your circumstances.
For registrants whose concern involves ethical judgement, valid consent, dignity or the patient relationship.
Works through the ethical standards in Standards for the Dental Team as they apply to dental practice, and the situations where ethical issues most often lead to GDC concerns.
The ethical standards you are held to under Standards for the Dental Team
How honesty, consent and confidentiality feature in regulatory concerns
Writing an ethical reflection aligned to the GDC standards
For registrants whose concern involves ethical judgement, valid consent, dignity or the patient relationship.
When a concern spans multiple ethical areas rather than one specific principle, a comprehensive ethical foundation makes your remediation response more credible. Covers moral reasoning frameworks and how regulators actually apply them when assessing fitness to practise.
Moral reasoning frameworks professionals use when facing ethical dilemmas
How regulators weigh ethical conduct across every domain of their standards
Duty of candour - what it requires and how failures escalate to formal concerns
For registrants whose concern involves ethical judgement, valid consent, dignity or the patient relationship.
Most fitness to practise cases do not arise from clear ethical failures but from grey areas - complex situations where the right course was not obvious. This course addresses the daily ethical decisions professionals face, examining the specific grey areas where most investigations originate.
Navigating ethically ambiguous clinical situations without clear right answers
Whistleblowing, raising concerns and when the duty of candour applies
Managing ethical conflict with colleagues, employers and the system
For registrants whose concern involves ethical judgement, valid consent, dignity or the patient relationship.
At 2.5 CPD hours, this is the most substantial ethics course available. Written for UK healthcare professionals facing a substantive regulatory concern where a panel hearing is likely. Covers the full range of ethical obligations - from end-of-life and capacity decisions to research ethics to financial conduct.
End-of-life decisions, patient capacity and best interests assessments
Research ethics, data protection and obligations beyond the consulting room
Building an ethical framework that withstands regulatory scrutiny
For registrants whose concern involves ethical judgement, valid consent, dignity or the patient relationship.
Consent failures rank among the most frequent reasons for regulatory referrals. This course covers what valid consent actually requires in UK practice - capacity, information, voluntariness - and examines the specific scenarios where consent most commonly breaks down, including chaperone obligations.
What makes consent valid under UK law and professional standards - the three requirements
Consent for patients lacking capacity - best interests, deputies and court orders
Chaperone obligations - when they apply, how to document them, and what happens when they are not followed
For registrants whose concern involves conduct, communication, documentation or working with colleagues.
Grounds professionalism — conduct, communication, boundaries and behaviour toward colleagues and patients — in Standards for the Dental Team and the day-to-day situations dental practitioners face.
What professionalism means under the GDC standards
Common professionalism concerns and how they escalate to a referral
Demonstrating professional behaviour has been understood and embedded
For registrants whose concern involves conduct, communication, documentation or working with colleagues.
Professionalism is not one standard but a cluster of behaviours that span every aspect of professional practice - from how you communicate under pressure to how you respond to a colleague in difficulty. This course provides the broad professional grounding that contextualises more specific remediation work.
Professionalism in practice - what it looks like when regulators are watching
How personal circumstances affect professional performance and what to do
The relationship between professional conduct and patient safety outcomes
For registrants whose concern involves conduct, communication, documentation or working with colleagues.
Communication failures underlie more regulatory concerns than almost any other single factor. Inadequate information, failure to listen, poor handling of complaints - each can independently generate a formal concern. This course examines where communication most commonly breaks down and what effective professional communication requires under your regulator's standards.
Communication standards required under the Practise Effectively domain
Breaking bad news, handling complaints and difficult conversations professionally
How poor written communication in referrals and records escalates into concerns
For registrants whose concern involves conduct, communication, documentation or working with colleagues.
Working effectively with colleagues - teamwork, delegation, supervision and raising concerns - is a core expectation in every regulator's standards. When concerns involve behaviour toward colleagues, this is the area under scrutiny. This course examines what it requires and how to demonstrate genuine improvement.
What working effectively with colleagues actually requires under professional standards
Accountability in hierarchical clinical environments - delegation and supervision
Raising concerns about colleagues - when, how, and the professional obligation to do so
For registrants whose concern involves conduct, communication, documentation or working with colleagues.
Poor documentation features in a significant proportion of regulatory investigations - either as the primary concern or as an aggravating factor. This course examines what professional record-keeping requires, the specific failures that most commonly arise, and how documentation quality affects how regulators assess your overall professionalism.
Regulator expectations for clinical records - accuracy, completeness and timing
How to amend records appropriately without creating additional concerns
Why documentation quality directly affects how case examiners assess your honesty
For registrants whose concern involves honesty, candour, accurate information or financial integrity.
When regulators use the word probity, they mean more than honesty - they mean the fundamental trustworthiness that underpins the entire professional-patient relationship. Probity obligations cover financial conduct, accuracy of information, and how you behave when no one is watching. If your regulator's letter mentions probity, this is your first course.
What probity means in regulatory practice - beyond honesty to fundamental integrity
Probity obligations in your regulator's standards broken down point by point
How regulators weigh probity failures when assessing whether trust can be restored
For registrants whose concern involves honesty, candour, accurate information or financial integrity.
Financial concerns in regulatory investigations cover a specific range of obligations - product or prescribing independence, referral arrangements, undisclosed private interests, and accuracy of financial records. If your concern touches any of these areas, this course addresses the precise obligations under your regulator's standards.
For registrants whose concern involves honesty, candour, accurate information or financial integrity.
The duty of candour requires professionals to be open and honest with patients when things go wrong - promptly, with an apology, and with an explanation of what happened. Failures in candour compound original errors and are treated seriously by regulators. This course examines exactly what the duty requires and how to apply it.
When the duty of candour is triggered and what timely disclosure looks like
The difference between a genuine apology and an admission of legal liability
How to document your candour response so it is available as remediation evidence
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
Case examiners consistently identify insight as the single most important factor when assessing whether a professional can be trusted to practise safely. This module teaches you what genuine insight looks like in a regulatory context - not expressions of remorse, but demonstrable understanding of what happened and why it must not happen again.
What your regulator means by insight - and what examiners look for that is not insight
The difference between understanding what you did and understanding why you did it
How to structure an insight statement that case examiners find credible and specific
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
Reflection is the foundation of remediation - but most professionals have never been taught how to reflect in a way that produces useful regulatory evidence. This module teaches structured reflection using frameworks accepted in UK practice, applied specifically to the kind of concern that generates investigations.
Structured reflective frameworks used in UK practice - Gibbs, Schon, Johns
What good reflection says about what changed - not just what happened
Maintaining a reflective log throughout an investigation to build ongoing evidence
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
Remediation is not a checklist - it is a credible body of evidence that tells your regulator a coherent story about change. This module teaches you how to construct that story: what to include, what sequence works, how much is enough, and how to present it so that case examiners can actually evaluate the change you are claiming.
What a complete remediation response looks like - components regulators expect to see
How to sequence your remediation so early action is visible and credible
Presenting your evidence in written submissions and at MPTS hearings effectively
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
Most professionals receiving a letter from their regulator have never engaged with the fitness to practise process before. Understanding how the process works - the legal tests applied, the stages, the possible outcomes, your rights - fundamentally changes how effectively you can respond. This course provides that foundation.
How a fitness to practise case progresses from referral to outcome
The legal test for current impairment and how it differs from past conduct
Your rights and obligations at each stage - from interim orders to MPTS panels
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
One of the central questions in every fitness to practise case is whether the same thing will happen again. Case examiners are specifically trained to assess this - and a vague statement that you will be more careful is not an answer. This course teaches root cause analysis applied to your own practice and how to build verifiable personal safeguards.
Root cause analysis applied to a specific clinical or professional failure
How to identify personal, systemic and contextual factors - not just individual error
Designing personal safeguards that are realistic, observable and verifiable by others
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
Most fitness to practise concerns begin with an avoidable complaint. This course looks at the early warning signs, the communication and record-keeping habits that reduce risk, and the practical steps that keep everyday practice from escalating into a formal investigation.
The most common triggers behind patient and colleague complaints
Communication and documentation habits that prevent escalation
How to respond early when concerns are first raised
For registrants who want to understand the process and build insight, reflection and remediation evidence.
When a complaint or investigation does arrive, how you respond shapes the outcome. This course walks through each stage of the process, what your regulator is looking for, and how to prepare a calm, structured, and credible response rather than reacting under pressure.
What each stage of a complaint or investigation involves
How to prepare a structured, evidence-led written response
Managing the process professionally while protecting your wellbeing
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
Professional boundaries in practice are not instinctive - they require active maintenance. Most boundary violations do not begin as deliberate acts but as gradual drift that goes unrecognised until it has caused harm. This course examines how boundaries erode, what genuine maintenance looks like, and what your regulator expects when concerns have already arisen.
How professional boundaries erode gradually - the warning signs most professionals miss
Sexual boundaries, physical contact and the legal framework in UK practice
What re-establishing boundaries looks like in practice and how to document it
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
Boundary violations with patients and colleagues are among the most serious matters regulators investigate - and they rarely happen suddenly. This course examines the gradual erosion that precedes most boundary breaches, and what genuine boundary maintenance requires in professional practice.
How professional boundaries erode gradually - the pattern regulators most commonly see
Sexual boundaries, personal disclosure and the management of dual relationships
Re-establishing appropriate boundaries after a lapse and documenting the change
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
Online conduct is now one of the fastest-growing categories of regulatory referral. Patient contact via social media, commentary about cases, inappropriate posts, and inadequate anonymisation each carry specific professional risks that most professionals underestimate. This course examines what your regulator expects and where the risks are highest.
Regulator social media guidance - what conduct triggers a concern
Why any patient contact via social media is a boundary issue regardless of intent
Anonymisation requirements - what they actually mean and why most approaches fall short
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
When an investigation has progressed to a review hearing or a panel, the central question shifts from what happened to whether you can be trusted not to let it happen again. This course focuses specifically on the evidence that rebuilds trust - not performative gestures but verifiable, sustained changes that others can confirm.
What verifiable trust-rebuilding looks like - what regulator panels actually assess
How supervisors, employers and colleagues can provide evidence that supports your case
Presenting trust evidence in written submissions and oral hearings compellingly
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
Concerns about discriminatory treatment, failures to maintain patient dignity, or biased professional conduct are taken seriously by regulators under both their professional standards and the Equality Act 2010. This course examines what non-discrimination and dignity in practice require - and how unconscious bias contributes to concerns that professionals often do not recognise as discrimination.
Equality Act 2010 obligations as they apply to professional practice and employment
Unconscious bias in clinical decision-making - the evidence and what to do about it
Dignity in high-stakes contexts including end-of-life care and psychiatric settings
For registrants whose concern involves boundaries, relationships, confidentiality, conduct online or rebuilding trust.
Confidentiality breaches are a consistent source of regulatory referrals - from inappropriate disclosures to colleagues, to inadequate data protection practices, to disclosures on social media. This course examines the full scope of your confidentiality obligations and where they are most commonly breached.
When patient confidentiality can lawfully be broken - public interest and safeguarding
Data protection obligations as they apply specifically to clinical information
Managing confidentiality risks in teams, referrals and digital communications
For registrants whose concern relates to competence, safe and effective practice or patient safety.
Where concerns relate to clinical competence rather than conduct - errors in clinical judgement, outdated practice, knowledge gaps - the remediation response requires a different approach. You need to demonstrate not just that you understand what went wrong, but that your competence has been objectively assessed and verified as restored.
How regulators assess clinical competence concerns differently from conduct concerns
Objective assessment, supervised practice and what constitutes competence evidence
How to demonstrate that clinical competence has been verified - not just self-assessed
For registrants whose concern relates to competence, safe and effective practice or patient safety.
Prescribing errors are a frequent source of regulatory concern. This course covers the principles of safe, effective prescribing - from decision-making and documentation to monitoring and shared responsibility - and shows how to evidence safe practice as part of a remediation response.
Core principles of safe and effective prescribing decisions
Documentation, monitoring, and review that reduce prescribing risk
How to evidence safe prescribing as remediation for your regulator
Remediation is broader than completing a course. A useful way to think about it is a cycle: understand the concern, identify your learning needs, reflect, apply changes to your practice, and evidence the change over time.
For GDC registrants, CPD courses can provide structured learning and documentation that may support that process — but their relevance depends on your individual circumstances and the concern involved. These courses translate Standards for the Dental Team and remediation concepts into self-paced learning, each awarding CPD and a certificate.
Key point: a certificate is evidence that learning was completed. It is not, by itself, proof that a concern has been remediated or that you meet the standards.
Any GDC registrant can face a concern. Remediation learning is commonly relevant if you are in one of these situations.
A concern has been raised
A referral to the GDC from an employer, patient, colleague or another body has been made about your conduct, competence or health.
You are preparing evidence
Your defence organisation, union or solicitor has advised you to build structured evidence of insight and remediation ahead of a decision or hearing.
You are strengthening practice
You want to address a learning need proactively — after a reflective discussion, an appraisal action, or a near-miss — before it escalates.
Where remediation fits
GDC Fitness to Practise Explained
"Fitness to practise" means having the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively. A concern is considered through the GDC's fitness to practise process; the route and outcome depend on the individual facts.
A concern is raised with the GDC by a patient, employer, colleague or another body.
STAGE 2
Assessment
The GDC assesses the concern against its criteria to decide whether to investigate.
STAGE 3
Investigation
Evidence is gathered; an Investigating Committee decides whether there is a case to refer.
STAGE 4
Hearing
If referred, a Practice Committee (Professional Conduct, Performance or Health) hears the case.
STAGE 5
Outcome
The panel decides whether fitness to practise is impaired, and any sanction.
Concerns generally fall into a few categories: misconduct, lack of competence or performance, health, a criminal conviction or caution, or a determination by another regulator. Learning and remediation may be relevant to your response, but they do not replace case-specific legal or regulatory advice.
The framework
How the GDC Considers a Concern
These are key elements a panel weighs. They are not a fixed formula, and outcomes depend on the individual circumstances of each case.
1
The nature & seriousness
What happened, how serious it is, and whether it is capable of being addressed through remediation.
2
Relevant context
The circumstances, systems, workplace pressures or health factors relevant to what occurred.
3
Your response & current risk
What you have done since — your insight, remediation, and whether the risk of repetition remains.
The concept that decides most hearings
Current Impairment — the Key Concept
A panel does not only ask "did this happen?" It asks whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired — that is, whether, today and looking forward, there remains a risk to patients or to public confidence in the profession.
This is why insight and remediation matter so much. A past act may be serious, yet a panel can find that fitness to practise is no longer impaired where a registrant demonstrates genuine understanding of what went wrong and evidence it has been addressed. Equally, a relatively minor matter handled with no insight can suggest ongoing risk.
What happened→Capable of remediation?→Has it been remediated?→Current impairment?
This is a general explanation of how impairment is approached, not legal advice. How it applies to your case is a matter for your representative.
Key concepts
Insight, Reflection and Remediation
Panels look for all three. They are not interchangeable, and knowing which one a concern is asking for changes how you respond.
Understanding
Insight
Understanding what happened, why, its impact on patients and public confidence, and what you would do differently. Often the element panels find lacking.
Learning from experience
Reflection
A structured process of learning from experience — considering learning, impact and future practice, rather than a factual narrative of events.
Concrete steps
Remediation
Action taken to address identified deficiencies and reduce the risk of recurrence — CPD, supervision, changes to practice — with evidence it happened.
The question being asked
Fitness to practise
Whether you have the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively — and whether that is currently in question.
The learning cycle these courses support
Learn→Reflect→Apply→Evidence→Review
Alignment
How Our Courses Align With the GDC Standards
The GDC publishes several sets of standards. Our courses are independently designed to build knowledge across them — they are not GDC-approved or endorsed.
STANDARDS 1
Standards for the Dental Team
Nine principles — from putting patients' interests first and obtaining valid consent to maintaining and developing professional knowledge and skills.
STANDARDS 2
Scope of practice
Working within your training, knowledge and competence for your role in the dental team.
STANDARDS 3
Enhanced CPD
A minimum number of verifiable CPD hours over a five-year cycle, supported by a personal development plan.
ACROSS ALL
Insight & reflection
Reflective practice underpins the standards; demonstrating learning is central to remaining fit to practise.
CPD & the record
CPD, Remediation and the GDC CPD Requirements
CPD is both a route to remediation and a standing obligation. Understanding what the GDC expects helps you keep the right records.
How CPD supports you
Structured, dated evidence of learning relevant to the concern
Material to write a focused reflective account from
Records you can enter directly into your CPD record
Demonstrable steps that may bear on current impairment
What the GDC expects
Complete a minimum number of verifiable CPD hours over the five-year cycle
Keep a personal development plan and CPD log
Ensure CPD is relevant to your field and scope of practice
Records may be requested by the GDC
CPD and revalidation requirements are set by the GDC and can change — always check the GDC website for current details before relying on them.
The methodology
Learn → Reflect → Apply → Evidence → Review
CPD is most useful when it feeds a cycle. Here is how a single course becomes part of a documented development record that also supports your CPD obligations.
1
Learn
Complete structured CPD relevant to the concern or learning need.
2
Reflect
Write what the learning means for your own practice.
3
Apply
Make a practical change or safeguard in your day-to-day work.
4
Evidence
Keep the certificate, reflective note and any feedback in your CPD record.
5
Review
Revisit whether the change has embedded and whether more is needed.
The bigger picture
Building a Remediation Evidence Portfolio
Depending on the concern, useful evidence may come from several sources. CPD is one part of a wider picture.
The appropriate evidence varies by case. Follow advice from your regulator, employer, professional body, union or legal representative where applicable.
The process in detail
The GDC Investigation Process
Knowing the stage you are at helps you focus your response and your evidence.
1
Referral & threshold
The GDC receives a concern and screens it against its criteria to decide whether it meets the threshold for investigation.
2
Investigation
Information is gathered from the parties. You will usually be invited to respond — a key point at which insight and early remediation can be shown.
3
Case to answer
An Investigating Committee decide, on the papers, whether there is a case to answer. If not, the case is closed.
4
Practice Committee hearing
If referred, a panel decides the facts, whether fitness to practise is currently impaired, and any sanction.
Can happen early
Interim Orders
An interim order can be imposed before any facts are decided
Where it is considered necessary to protect the public, in the public interest, or in your own interests, the GDC can impose an interim suspension or interim conditions while an investigation continues. It is protective, not a finding against you — but it affects your ability to work and usually comes with a short timeframe. Contact your indemnity provider, union or a specialist solicitor as soon as you are notified, before doing anything else.
The hearing
Hearings & Possible Outcomes
A GDC Practice Committee panel first decides the facts, then whether fitness to practise is impaired, and only then considers a sanction.
Where impairment is not found
No impairment found — the case is concluded
Advice or a reprimand may be issued in some cases
Insight and remediation are central to reaching this point
Sanctions a panel may impose
Reprimand
Conditions on registration
Suspension
Erasure from the register
Sanctions are decided by the panel on the facts of each case and the GDC's guidance. This is a general summary, not advice on your case or a prediction of outcome.
Built for your practice
Courses for the Whole Dental Team
The GDC regulates dentists and dental care professionals. The courses fit dental practice across every role in the team.
IRR Practice courses are written and reviewed by Dr Anthony Whitfield, a practising clinician with 29 years of experience across clinical practice, healthcare education and regulation.
His postgraduate training in healthcare law and ethics informs how each course connects everyday practice with the standards you are measured against. Regulatory content is written to reflect current published GDC guidance and reviewed when that guidance changes.
29 years' experienceClinical & healthcare educationHealthcare law & ethicsFaculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine
Content last reviewed against current GDC guidance: September 2026
Learner feedback
What Registrants Say About the Learning
Permission-based feedback about the courses as learning — describing the learning experience only, not any regulatory result.
★★★★★
"Clear and directly relevant to practice. The reflection prompts helped me put my learning into my own words, which was exactly what my CPD record needed."
Dentist
Verified learner · 2026 · shared with permission
★★★★★
"I could start the same evening and work at my own pace. The certificate plus my reflective note gave me something concrete to bring to supervision."
Dental hygienist
Verified learner · 2026 · shared with permission
★★★★★
"Written by someone who clearly understands both practice and the regulatory side. The structure made reflection far less daunting than doing it from scratch."
Dental nurse
Verified learner · 2026 · shared with permission
Official guidance
Official GDC Resources
Read the source material directly. These links go to the official GDC website.
No. The courses are independently provided CPD education and are not approved, accredited or endorsed by the GDC. They are CPD accredited as continuing professional development, which is separate from any regulator.
They may provide relevant structured learning and evidence of CPD, depending on your individual circumstances. No course can guarantee a regulatory outcome.
Yes — each course awards verifiable CPD and issues a certificate you can record. Remember the GDC expects you to reflect on how the learning benefits your practice and patients, not just to list activities.
No. Completing a course may support learning, but insight is demonstrated through your own understanding, reflection, response and actions.
Start with the Core Set, then use the concern selector to match the concern raised. If you don't yet know how your case has been categorised, choose the general option, or contact us for guidance.
No. They are educational CPD and are not a substitute for case-specific legal or regulatory advice from your defence organisation, union or solicitor.
No. Outcomes are determined by the regulator's process and the individual circumstances of the case.
Access is immediate on purchase. Each course is £65, and you only pay for the courses you choose.
More pathways
Remediation Courses for Other Professions
Registered with a different regulator? Explore the course pathway written for your profession’s standards, or browse the full course library.
Find the Right Course for Your Professional Development
Start with the concern or learning need you want to address. Review the recommended courses, choose the learning relevant to your circumstances, and build evidence of development over time.
IRR Practice is an independent CPD provider. We are not affiliated with, accredited by, or endorsed by the General Dental Council. Our courses provide educational and professional-development content only. Course completion does not guarantee any outcome in a concern, fitness to practise case, hearing, CPD audit or other regulatory matter. The relevance and weight of any learning evidence depends on the individual circumstances. For case-specific legal or regulatory advice, seek advice from an appropriately qualified professional.
Page content last reviewed against current published GDC guidance: September 2026.
